Montana Elk Proposals with Director Hank Worsech
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
sacountry
Well-known member
You, sir, are as good as they come. It's hard for me not to see smoke and mirrors, even as Hank likes to think that he's all meat and potatoes. First we're dealing with district simplification, then bull to cow ratios, then its over population in eastern districts, and now neighbors holding neighbors accountable (or lack thereof). It's all BS. Unless we address helping landowners with damage, which should likely involve some limited access (in days not seasons), then we're all just wasting our time and our natural resource. Something about an FWP heli flying over the Wilkes ranch moving elk just before the start of a season makes me smile. Terrible I know, but misbehaving elk need to be trained.
Last edited:
bullbugle307
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2018
- Messages
- 934
And it probably will because most people will blindly vote the guy with the R or D next to his name
Because they will.
I think a landowner saying exactly this during the February 4th commission meeting would be the kind of tonic we'd all like to mix w/our Gin.
Quite the listen. I was left wondering how the heck fwp hired him in the first place and that employees of fwp are probably feelings like crap these days.
I’m a montana non resident and I really wish you all luck navigating his time at the helm. Unfortunately this type of thinking spreads to other states as others take note of what is going on somewhere else to appease the rich and influential
I’m a montana non resident and I really wish you all luck navigating his time at the helm. Unfortunately this type of thinking spreads to other states as others take note of what is going on somewhere else to appease the rich and influential
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,378
I think landowners and hunters working together to actually come up with agreeable management solutions is completely possible if the politicians and MOGA don’t get to poison the well.
Whether FWP and this administration would be willing to implement those solutions is up for debate.
If the Legislature and the administration won't, then that's when we run the initiative. FWP, The administration and the legislature have one shot to get this right before this should just go straight to the people.
It's imperative to spend 2022 working toward those solutions, with or without the agency, but certainly with the folks like @406LIFE @Big Shooter & @Eric Albus who will be working on legislation through PLPW.
And this is why folks are working on the MT Citizen's Elk Coalition - to do just that - have the conversations between landowners, outfitters and hunters and find that middle ground.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,039
Well, I managed to listen to the pod cast in its entirety. I can't really say the Director made very good arguments for his position. His argument against moving to cow only hunting in over objective units was also lacking.
I did compose an e-mail that I sent to each of the commissioners giving my position.
The following is the e-mail that I sent to each of them.
There are proposed changes to the elk licenses and permits in many units that are deeply troubling to me. First, the proposed changes do not begin to solve the problem that they are supposedly addressing. The stated problem is that there are units that are far above a population objective. The most common proposed solution is to increase in some manner the number of either sex tags in these units. Either sex tags are defacto bull tags. This will result in additional pressure on the portion of the elk population that is not the root of the problem.
The only logical way to reduce elk numbers is to increase the harvest of cow elk. In order to do that, the licensing changes need to direct additional pressure on cow elk, not bull elk. Part of the elk management plan is that over objective units would revert to cow only hunting until the unit is again with in objective. This is the solution that is the most fair to the largest number of the hunting public. All of the hunting pressure will be directed at the root of the over objective problem. The loss of hunting bulls in the unit will only last as long as needed to bring the population back to the levels mandated in the elk management plan.
It appears to me that the real aim of the proposed plans put forth by FWP is to cater to wealthy non resident landowners. The laws of the state cap non resident licenses in limited permit areas to 10% of the permits. It appears to me like this is a blatant end around both the laws of Montana and the will of resident hunters.
Please consider this when you vote on these changes later this week.
Respectfully
I did compose an e-mail that I sent to each of the commissioners giving my position.
The following is the e-mail that I sent to each of them.
There are proposed changes to the elk licenses and permits in many units that are deeply troubling to me. First, the proposed changes do not begin to solve the problem that they are supposedly addressing. The stated problem is that there are units that are far above a population objective. The most common proposed solution is to increase in some manner the number of either sex tags in these units. Either sex tags are defacto bull tags. This will result in additional pressure on the portion of the elk population that is not the root of the problem.
The only logical way to reduce elk numbers is to increase the harvest of cow elk. In order to do that, the licensing changes need to direct additional pressure on cow elk, not bull elk. Part of the elk management plan is that over objective units would revert to cow only hunting until the unit is again with in objective. This is the solution that is the most fair to the largest number of the hunting public. All of the hunting pressure will be directed at the root of the over objective problem. The loss of hunting bulls in the unit will only last as long as needed to bring the population back to the levels mandated in the elk management plan.
It appears to me that the real aim of the proposed plans put forth by FWP is to cater to wealthy non resident landowners. The laws of the state cap non resident licenses in limited permit areas to 10% of the permits. It appears to me like this is a blatant end around both the laws of Montana and the will of resident hunters.
Please consider this when you vote on these changes later this week.
Respectfully
Bullshot
Well-known member
Nonresident, watching all these comments on this and the prior thread and going “wow, just wow… what the heck is up with Montana?”
For overpopulated units why not just give unlimited cow tags to the ranches, or very very liberalized numbers based on acreage. It would be an initial slaughter and they at first would use them to make additional money, but it would move the elk around pretty fast and over time lower the unit’s herd, thus self correcting over a few years likely. Ranchers that don’t want to harbor can shoot every cow in sight for a couple seasons. Overpopulation
and damage claims (on ranches that are not elk farms) solved. Fish & Game can tell them to continue to harbor elk if you want, but you shouldn’t be getting additional trophy bull tags to sell to rich clients as your “reward”. There is no NEED for any reward. The elk belong to the State of Montana whos only interest should be managing healthy herds, balancing conflicts, and maximizing PUBLIC satisfaction while operating a responsibly solvent agency. Private landowners should each count as ONE member of the public, which is all they are. In fact, many landowners are probably LLC corporations, not just a plain jane citizen, and corporations DEFINITELY should not receive publicly owned resources as gifts or payments from
a state resource management agency. But everyone agrees this is not actually herd management in line with the State’s duty at the end of the day. Its grift. Good luck.
For overpopulated units why not just give unlimited cow tags to the ranches, or very very liberalized numbers based on acreage. It would be an initial slaughter and they at first would use them to make additional money, but it would move the elk around pretty fast and over time lower the unit’s herd, thus self correcting over a few years likely. Ranchers that don’t want to harbor can shoot every cow in sight for a couple seasons. Overpopulation
and damage claims (on ranches that are not elk farms) solved. Fish & Game can tell them to continue to harbor elk if you want, but you shouldn’t be getting additional trophy bull tags to sell to rich clients as your “reward”. There is no NEED for any reward. The elk belong to the State of Montana whos only interest should be managing healthy herds, balancing conflicts, and maximizing PUBLIC satisfaction while operating a responsibly solvent agency. Private landowners should each count as ONE member of the public, which is all they are. In fact, many landowners are probably LLC corporations, not just a plain jane citizen, and corporations DEFINITELY should not receive publicly owned resources as gifts or payments from
a state resource management agency. But everyone agrees this is not actually herd management in line with the State’s duty at the end of the day. Its grift. Good luck.
Luke_with_a_lab
Well-known member
I wish that hank would have expanded more on the 454 selection process for choosing public hunters that get to go onto the private. He said the landowner picks one for every two the department picks and that was about it. He never talked about what their selection process looks like other than its "random" or how the average hunter can go about trying to get on these lists.
Secondly, I found it interesting how much sympathy hank had for the wealthy out of state landowners who "get bashed in the public dialoged". He then said something about how Ferris Wilks is really a good guy blah blah blah. Those landowners seem to be one of the key roadblocks for the problems MT is facing right now. What option other than vocally calling out/ reprimanding these landowners does the public have? What have these landowners (i.e. Wilks) ever done to build public trust?
Last thing on elk, there was one point discussed that I really did like to hear randy and hank agree on. That was the idea of making these Ranch Brokers/ real-estate agents inform the to-be buyer that they may not be able to hunt elk on their property every year and that the elk tags can be hard to draw. I dont know how many people actually buy large ranches with the intent to hunt and don't know the regulations in that unit. BUT, if someone does that and realizes after the fact they have to draw its sure hard to have any sympathy for them.
It'll be interesting to see what they do with mule deer. I honestly don't know how they could make it much worse? I remain hopeful that will be a slightly less divisive topic.
Secondly, I found it interesting how much sympathy hank had for the wealthy out of state landowners who "get bashed in the public dialoged". He then said something about how Ferris Wilks is really a good guy blah blah blah. Those landowners seem to be one of the key roadblocks for the problems MT is facing right now. What option other than vocally calling out/ reprimanding these landowners does the public have? What have these landowners (i.e. Wilks) ever done to build public trust?
Last thing on elk, there was one point discussed that I really did like to hear randy and hank agree on. That was the idea of making these Ranch Brokers/ real-estate agents inform the to-be buyer that they may not be able to hunt elk on their property every year and that the elk tags can be hard to draw. I dont know how many people actually buy large ranches with the intent to hunt and don't know the regulations in that unit. BUT, if someone does that and realizes after the fact they have to draw its sure hard to have any sympathy for them.
It'll be interesting to see what they do with mule deer. I honestly don't know how they could make it much worse? I remain hopeful that will be a slightly less divisive topic.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,676
I'm sure it will be fascinating.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,676
He's exactly the kind of person you want representing Montana landowners, hunters, and elk for something like this.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Hank made it sound like those units that are over-objective will be going to ‘unlimited’ , in FWP parlance. That means all the landowners will get tags and public land hunters will need to pick a unit. Anyone else get the feeling the decision has already been made?
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,641
Yup. I’m planning my hunt. Working on my social anxiety as we speak. Man I love people. That’s why I hunt
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,641
I’m working on my calling too. Especially my greeting sequence. I’m thinking something like this “Hi there, nice bow! Wow you are built like cam hanes. Are you from Bozeman?” I think it’s going to really work.
It was extremely plain to me that he has sat through a bunch of HR and government management classes. Knows how to be subtle when talking down to others, talk in circles, dodge a question with buzzwords, redirects, etc
I would have loved a question or two on whether he feels outfitters benefit from all these “problem” elk and if he elk hunts public or private lands
I would have loved a question or two on whether he feels outfitters benefit from all these “problem” elk and if he elk hunts public or private lands
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
For some of the 900 zones, crowding will be a problem. Like 411 and Custer NF. The rest will only be those who have private or lined up outfitters.
antlerradar
Well-known member
I am working on a letter to the commissioners trying to explain how the proposals will not help with elk damage, Maybe I need to add in a few sentences on how I am getting tired of being used as a prop to push regulations designed to ensure out of state landowners get to hunt trophy bulls every year.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,378
I have to think that the perspectives of landowners like yourself would carry way more weight with this commission than Joe Average Hunter.
The Hedgehog
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2000
- Messages
- 11,676
Somebody like you would be ridiculously more effective in person with a short amount of prep than even two dozen voices of just guys that love to hunt elk. That is a FACT.
